Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

Edward Bates, then District Attorney of Missouri, to read the article signed "A Citizen." The Judge, according to my recollection, laid down what he considered to be the general principle of law as applicable to the doctrine of contempts, and applied them to the case then before the Court; that he expressed himself at some length, but what were his arguments I do not now recollect, but he stated, as the result of his opinion, that the case before the Court was one of those contemplated by the law of contempt, as he understood it, and that he should accordingly apply it to the author of the publication signed "A Citizen;" that he then proceeded to comment upon the article signed "A Citizen," paragraph by paragraph, as read by Mr. Bates, but I do not now recollect, from the lapse of time, all that he said upon that branch of his opinion, but I remember some portions of it. He stated it was evidently the intention of the author of "A Citizen" to misrepresent the opinion of the Court in the case of Soulard's heirs, to shake the public confidence in the impartiality of the Court, to bring the Court into disrepute, and to create a belief in the country, that land claimants having suits before that Court, could not expect justice from it. That the statements contained in the Citizen, as to matters of fact, were mistated. The Judge, I do not pretend to recollect the precise language of the Judge upon that occasion, but that he applied the terms of slanderer and of calumniator to the author of the piece signed "A Citizen;" that he expressed himself with much vehemence of manner, and appeared to be at times much excited. I now recollect, although it had escaped me in my previous examination before the Committee, of the Judge mentioning the punishment awarded to slanderers and calumniators in China, of having their houses blacked, as an evidence of their disgrace, and to give a warning to all persons to avoid and pass by such a character, and according to my recollection, I think that he said that if the author of "A Citizen" was in China, and had committed such an offence as the Court deemed that he had by the publication of such an article as the "Citizen," that such would be his punishment. I do not now recollect whether I was in Court when the final sentence was pronounced on Colonel Lawless, but recollect being in Court during the time that most, if not all the Judge's opinion on that occasion was delivered. The time consumed in delivering that opinion, according to my recollection, was something more than an hour, perhaps two hours. I do not know that I can state any thing more at this time.

Q. By Judge Peck. Were you in Court when the rule was made upon

Col. Lawless?

A. I do not recollect.

Q. Were you in Court when Col. Foreman, the Editor was examined by

the Court?

A. I think I was.

Q. Do you recollect whether he did not, under that examination, disclaim all knowledge of the mischievous tendency of the publication, and all intention on his part to reflect upon the Court?

A. I don't recollect Col. Foreman's precise answer, but according to my recollection he disclaimed all intention of committing any coutempt of that Court.

Q. Were you present at any time after the rule made upon Col. Lawless, when he appeared in Court, and addressed the Court for the purpose of having time allowed to him to attend to his professional business in the other Court, before the argument should proceed in his case?

A. I was probably present, but do not recollect distinctly of Col. Lawless' addressing the Court at any other time than as Counsel for Col. Foreman. Although he might have made the motion you speak of, I don't re

collect it.

Q. Were you present when the opinion of the Court was delivered in the case of Soulard?

A. I was, and took notes of it. I was also present during the argument of that case.

Q. Who was associated with Col. Lawless in the argument of that case? A. Col. George F. Strother.

Q. Were they heard at great length?

A. Col. Lawless made an argument of great length, and a very elaborate argument, but I don't recollect when Col. Strother spoke or how long, although I know he appeared in the case.

Q. Was the decree rendered at the same term at which the opinion was delivered in the case of Soulard?

A. I do not positively recollect; my impression is, it was not.

Q. Was its rendition postponed for the purpose of enabling Col. Lawless to be present?

A. I do not know the fact, Col. Lawless was absent during the progress of the suit; possibly it might have been so.

Q. Were you present during the argument of Col. Lawless on the rule against the Editor?

A. I was.

Q. Can you say whether the Court interrupted Col. Lawless for any other purpose than that of directing his attention to some point arising out of the publication, or the opinion commented upon therein, and if you can,

what?

A. I do not distinctly recollect; Col. Lawless was interrupted several times, but I do not now recollect for what purpose.

The witness here said,

There is one thing which escaped me in my direct examination; that the Judge, in commenting upon the motives which probably induced the author of A Citizen" in writing that article, appeared to be directed not only to injure the Court, but to reach the Judge.

Q. By Mr. Buchanan. What was the manner of the Judge and of Mr. Lawless, respectively, whilst the argument of the rule against the printer was proceeding?

A. I do not recollect that there was any thing extraordinary in the conduct of either.

Q. By the same. What was the manner of each of them, whilst the Judge was delivering his opinion on the rule against Mr. Lawless?

A. The manner of the Judge did not appear to be directed personally towards Mr. Lawless, but speaking of him as the author of "A Citizen" and the defendant on that rule before the Court, appeared to be vehement and much excited. I observed nothing particular in the conduct of Mr. Lawless whilst he remained in Court, which he left before the opinion was finished,

CHARLES S. HEMPSTEAD. Sworn and subscribed before the Committee on the Judiciary, this 20th of March 1830.

Attest,

JAMES BUCHANAN, Chairman.

Edward Charless being duly sworn according to law doth depose and say as follows:

"The Missouri Republican" of the 30th March, 1826, identified by the name of James Buchanan written thereon, was exhibited to the witness, whereupon his examination proceeded as follows: I was the publisher and printer of this paper. The opinion therein contained, was published, to the best of my recollection, at the request of Judge Peck. He unquestionably furnished the original for publication.

Q. By Judge Peck. Were you in court during any part of the proceedings against Mr. Foreman or Mr. Lawless?

I

A. I was I think about ten minutes on the day on which the rule was made against Col. Lawless. Col. Lawless was addressing the court. have no recollection of the arguments made by him or the language used. I merely recollect that he was sometimes interrupted by the Judge.

Q. By the same. With what view did the interruptions, on the part of the court, appear to be made? Had they for their object to refer the counsel to any matter arising out of the publication or the opinion which had been commented upon?

The

A. They were in relation to the article published in the Advocate. short time that I remained in court, so little of the proceedings did I hear, that I am unable to answer the question fully.

Q. By the same. Was there any thing remarkable in the manner of the you were there?

court whilst

A. I thought the manner of the Judge was earnest, and appeared at times

a little excited.

EDWARD CHARLESS.

Sworn and subscribed before the Committee on the Judiciary, March 20,

1830.

[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
« AnteriorContinua »